Idiotic. I'm sure you would say that Darwin's Theory of Evolution
was also untestable. In a very narrow way of thinking, you are
correct. If you define "testable" to mean "testable today and only
today", your argument may hold up. But of course it is unreasonable
to define "testable" as anything but "testable, today and in the future".
Let me point out the flaw in your reasoning.
Darwin's original hypothesis was untestable in his time, but it is
certainly testable (and has been tested) today. The difference
between his hypothesis and the hypothesis of Creation of God's
existence is that the latter CANNOT be tested for verification/
falsification.
You are correct when you point out that there are some hypotheses
that cannot adequately be tested at present. But the hypotheses are
desgined to be testable, despite our contemporaneous inability to
test such hypotheses. E = mc^2 is, of course, a hypothesis, a
theory by some peoples' accounts, even. But it IS being tested,
and has been tested since Michaelson.
I think your argument (quoted below) is terribly weak. A cogent
argument can be madeheological hypotheses were never meant to
be tested scientifically. But you can make up your own mind on
that.
shaft
Dane Myers wrote:
> Fully one third of the current hypothesis in high energy physics are
> untestable; the Standard Model fits current empirical theory fairly well,
> and you'd be run out the back door permanently were you to accuse the big
> boys at CERN or SLAC of running on faith. But E still equals mc^2, Higgs
> bosons still decay to leptons, and although not very pretty, the Standard
> Model is still empirically pleasing. Now tell me again why testability must
> predicate science?
>> Shaft wrote in message <36532160.4995D522 at indiana.edu>...
> >
> >You can search for middle ground in the fray of the arguments, and
> >inhabit with your comfortable beliefs, but one fact remains. The
> >numerous hypotheses of creation by the hand of God are
> >UNTESTABLE, and therefore UNSCIENTIFIC.